Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Naval LCA - News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57164
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Feb 2017 15:47

Sea gripen is a stupid concept from a fading light. If at all we something the rafale or f18 will work off shelf atleast

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15385
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 16:05

Singha wrote:Sea gripen is a stupid concept from a fading light. If at all we something the rafale or f18 will work off shelf atleast


I would not take the Sea Gripen seriously. The IN has asked for a two engine plane, so why is anyone entertaining a single engine I di not know. Parrikar has stated, even the NLCA based on the F414 is a non starter for commercial use.

On the F-18, Parrikar stated there is a need for twin engined planes and that they are discussing the quantity. I think the F-18 will come and be MII. SAAB claims EMALS is a done deal. IN in talks for the Hawkeye. All pointing in one direction.

Rafale-M is the other option. Cannot see that.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4777
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 19 Feb 2017 16:21

NRao wrote:I would not take the Sea Gripen seriously. The IN has asked for a two engine plane, so why is anyone entertaining a single engine I di not know. Parrikar has stated, even the NLCA based on the F414 is a non starter for commercial use.

Parrikar may or may not have made some informal comments to that effect but there's been no specific exclusion of single engined aircraft. Of course, the Gripen is non-starter, not to mention... non-existent at the moment.

If the doomed six-way M-MRCA contest was fierce, expect a great deal of blood in the next two jet fighter competitions: a Make in India single engine fighter face-off between Saab’s Gripen E & LockheedMartin’s F-16 Block 70 and the Indian Navy’s future carrier fighter contest, that, like the former, has apparently narrowed down to a straight two-horse race (the Indian defence minister suggested yesterday that the navy was only interested in twin-engine platforms) with the only two operational aircraft of their kind: Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Rafale M.

However, Livefist has learnt from top sources in the Indian Navy that its RFP for carrier fighters will not stipulate a twin-engine requirement, but leave it ambiguous, focusing more on capability and performance rather than engine configuration. Theoretically, that leaves the door open to Saab too, though how precisely they can prepare a demonstrable Gripen Maritime capability for necessary field evaluations remains unclear.

Livefist

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15385
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 16:37

Oh. Thx. That completes the picture. Parrikar, ADA, HAL and the IN are all on different wavelengths. So, I guess PMO, which has its own narrative, has already made the decision.

I guess those four are making statements to soothe various constituents.

F-18 is what I predict.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 19 Feb 2017 19:21

NRao wrote:
As one can easily guess, CATO load are around 2.5-3G, I am told ADA don't really see it as a big challenge per se. But they need catapult data to start working on CATO design.


Q:

First were any dates mentioned? When do they think the weight would be reduced. All 800 lbs.

Second, the NLCA was meant for ski jumps. Any idea if it can be used on a CAT? I did notice you alluded to it, but I have never heard of the NLCA being associated with a CAT, thus the question.

Third, just an observation, a lot still is TBD. Is that your observation too, having actually talked to them?

Very interesting you mention ADA and HAL in the same post.

Thx.


No dates mentioned, but GOI has given mandate to prepare NLCA MK2 for both STOBAR and CATOBAR for IAC-2. This appeared in 1 or 2 news items as well from Cmd Balaji's statement. ADA will have to strengthen the NLG a bit and add the component which mates with the catapult. But they do not seem to have any data on CAT so far. They don't even know whether it will be EMALS or Steam cat (Maybe higher ups only know). I think that will come only once IAC-2 configuration is decided upon. So thats a while now.

It has also been mentioned that NLCA MK2 design will be finished in 2019 and prototype will be flying by 2020-21 (Livefist news). This one (might be called NP4) is going to feature the most optimized LG. The immediate next prototype coming up, NP-3 (MK1) is having only partially optimized LG. You have to keep in mind that one of the key enabler for sleeker LG is the widely spaced footprint on MK2. Thus fully optimized avatar can only come in Mk2 prototype.

Frankly I don't see anything has been changed from original plan. This recent "Navy rejected LCA" is a red-herring only.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 19 Feb 2017 20:12

Neshant wrote:
Still NLCA MK2 will have about 5tons of weapons load at MTOW. That's equal to what MiG-29K can carry as per wiki.


Is it realistic for a single engine plane to do a short take off with a 5 ton load?
I would think not just take off but landing with such a heavy load would be an issue.

The navy should slightly adjust the intended role for the nLCA keeping in mind single engine aircraft have advantages & disadvantages vis-a-vis twin engine aircraft.

Give the role of CAP and recon to the nLCA, the role of fighter and attack can be assigned more so to the Mig-29K. Both can do each other's mission if need be but use the strategy which maximizes advantages of each plane. Accordingly, relax the payload requirement for the nLCA a little.


If NLCA can TO with that much load why not..?? Also I don't think there would be much issue with bring back load if they can have that kind of MTOW in STOBAR config. Its issue for CATOBAR where you can launch significantly more TOW than the aircraft could take on its own power. The difference between the MTOW and max Bring-back weight would be higher for CATOBAR than that for STOBAR, I think. And also the ETF and internal fuel would be dumped first to reduce weight in case of emergency landing immediately after TO. This is my guesstimate though. So take it FWIW.

In any case its upto ADA to make it as much capable as they can. Then its upto IN to use it as they may see fit. Anyway, no one would load it up with all bomb config, it will carry EFTs most of the time along. Higher MTOW would give it ability to carry for EFT and thus better radius for any sort of mission. In case emergency, the EFT can always be discarded and some internal fuel could be dumped to to get below max bring-back load.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 914
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rishi Verma » 19 Feb 2017 20:59

I think modi and trump are both bargainers and dealers. Trump may offer something more to clinch the f18 deal and modi might get concessions on h1b issues (or including pakis on the visa ban for example), expect both to begin negotiating after the first meeting in May.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3316
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 21 Feb 2017 00:19

Found this image of a PS modified Naval LCA NP1, where the canopy mould line has been changed. Very easy on the eye..hope the N-LCA Mk2 looks like this, with a reduced nose droop

Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9853
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Gagan » 21 Feb 2017 04:01

Wow! just look at the all round visibility of that cockpit. Second only to the F-16 in the visibility.

With a CATOBAR steam/EMALs carrier, this will actually give a lease of life to the NLCA Mk2.

Again there will be the single vs twin engine fighter concept, if the IN operates say a 100 fighters off its carriers.

In 20 years there will be a twin N-AMCA too

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 21 Feb 2017 10:03

So they converted NP1 from Trainer version to single seater version now..??

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 21 Feb 2017 10:22

JayS wrote:So they converted NP1 from Trainer version to single seater version now..??


looks like the same image.
Image

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 827
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 21 Feb 2017 10:28

the author admits its a PhotoShopped image...
Kartik please correct me if I am wrong.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4233
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 21 Feb 2017 11:28

Khalsa wrote:the author admits its a PhotoShopped image...
Kartik please correct me if I am wrong.


Kartik did mention it was photoshopped, PS is short form of PhotoShopped

Kartik wrote:Found this image of a PS modified Naval LCA NP1, where the canopy mould line has been changed. Very easy on the eye..hope the N-LCA Mk2 looks like this, with a reduced nose droop

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16189
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Feb 2017 11:54

Read the latest VAYU.Go through the articles there with respect to the LCA.There's a massive amt. of work reqd. to go beyond LA MK-1.Even meeting MK-1A std. will require some major changes,mostly internal,to make it easier to operate,service and maintain. NLCA if it ever materialises will be a tech demo. only.Period.
Ideally,the IN wants a twin-engined bird,an improvement on the MIG-29K for post 2020 requirements.The sensible option,if an upgraded MIG29/35 doesn't appear which has been perfected in all respects,is the Ralale-M. Commonality with the IAF's Rafales...and there are sure to be more buys in the future,perhaps another 36, The Sea Gripen option could be considered only if the amphibs ,supposed to be around 30-35,000K t,are similar to the Spanish/OZ amphibs,with a ski-jump. If a heavy-weight fighter is required,then upgraded SU-33s are an option along wiht the naval FGFA when it appears.

If the IN can wait for about 5-7 years, then these other heavyweight other options appear. Since the carrier design hasn't been frozen yet,size,power plant,launch system,up in the air,this decision could still be postponed.However,the design could incorporate larger lifts,able to accommodate an naval FGFA type in the future and use the Rafales now ,hopefully able to serve on the Vik-A and IAC-1 s well.
'

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2837
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby suryag » 21 Feb 2017 12:09

Mig29/35's are hangar queens with single digit serviceability, the SUs are much better with 30%. It is better to not waste money on these rust buckets but invest on LCA MK2, anyway, none of these planes are ready and are in use by any professional AFs

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 21 Feb 2017 14:30

Khalsa wrote:the author admits its a PhotoShopped image...
Kartik please correct me if I am wrong.


Ahh stupid me. PS. I didn't understand it. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning before my brain has woken up fully.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 827
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 22 Feb 2017 00:08

JayS wrote:
Khalsa wrote:the author admits its a PhotoShopped image...
Kartik please correct me if I am wrong.


Ahh stupid me. PS. I didn't understand it. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning before my brain has woken up fully.



All good pleasure JayS.
I too picked up the PS when I read Kartik's comments a second time.

Jai Hind Sir

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16189
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2017 11:33

The new regulations have recently been approved by the Ru govt. whereby any RU arms OEM can directly engage with an Indian entity for support,supply of spares,etc. for any Ru mil eqpt.This will remove any bottlenecks of babudom that earlier existed.Sev. entities to support Ru mil eqpt. for the 3 services respectively are being set up,even with pvt. industry.

NLCA MK-2 is as alive as the dead Dodo. Being single-engined,even if it arrives 5 years hence,the IN will want/has given its req. for a larger twin-engined bird.As MP said,it will be a "tech-dem" only.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5837
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby vina » 22 Feb 2017 11:41

Philip wrote:The new regulations have recently been approved by the Ru govt. whereby any RU arms OEM can directly engage with an Indian entity for support,supply of spares,etc. for any Ru mil eqpt.This will remove any bottlenecks of babudom that earlier existed.Sev. entities to support Ru mil eqpt. for the 3 services respectively are being set up,even with pvt. industry..

Sorry Philip. The Mig29 K (k for Kakkoose) doesnt work. The engine is an unreliable piece of garbage. It is a hanger queen. No amount of "spares" is going to fix it. Klimov haven't managed to get a reliable engine working from the RD-33 range for 25 years now.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3316
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 23 Feb 2017 01:15

I just thought of doing a simple analysis of the flight hours utilization of the JF-17s of the PAF with their RD-93 engines. The RD-93 is a variant of the RD-33 after all.

Alan Warnes had reported in that the 65 strong JF-17 fleet had logged 19,000 flight hours since its induction into the PAF

The JF-17 was inducted into service in February 2010..that's 6 years ago. In 6 years, the entire PAF fleet has flown about 19,000 hours.

If you consider the size of the fleet, it becomes clear that such a low number of flying hours indicates that the reliability and availability of the JF-17 fleet is pretty low.

I know that the fleet has been built up over the years, but still, they have 4 squadrons and a fifth recently re-equipped with the JF-17. But the statistics till December 2016 are ~70 strong fleet and ~20,000 flying hours in 6 years of service with 2 crashes. i.e. an attrition rate of 1 crash per 10,000 flying hours. Which compares poorly with the IAF's attrition rate of 0.83 per 10,000 flying hours for the period 1991-1998, when it was using MiG-23s, MiG-21s of various vintages and MiG-27s primarily. But the 1 crash per 10,000 hours is better than what PAF has historically managed. Basically, they crash a lot more than the IAF for the same amount of flying.

From Wikipedia
Final assembly of the JF-17 in Pakistan began on 30 June 2009; PAC expected to complete production of four to six aircraft that year. They planned to produce twelve aircraft in 2010 and fifteen to sixteen aircraft per year from 2011; this could increase to twenty-five aircraft per year.[59] On December 29, 2015, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) announced the rollout of 16th JF-17 Thunder fighter manufactured in the calendar year 2015, taking total number of manufactured aircraft to more than 66.


So I basically did some simple maths, but had to re-do it since the advertised production per year clearly isn't true. Otherwise, by December 2016, the number of JF-17s in service @ 16 per year from 2011 would have been 106. But a PAF statement that as of December 2016, ~70 JF-17s were in service showed that they were inducting ~10 JF-17s per year, not 16.


Year EnteredService FleetTotal AverageYearlyHours CumulativeYearlyHours
2010 10 10 70 700
2011 10 20 70 2100
2012 10 30 70 4200
2013 10 40 70 7000
2014 10 50 70 10500
2015 10 60 70 14700
2016 10 70 70 19600


Clearly, availability of the JF-17 in PAF service has been ~70 hours per year per jet, or an average of 140 sorties per year assuming each sortie lasts 30 minutes.

I don't believe the rosy picture they paint, since it would hit export prospects, but it doesn't seem to be that either their production numbers are anywhere near the figures they claim nor is the jet's availability particularly good.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1759
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Bala Vignesh » 23 Feb 2017 10:46

Philip wrote:NLCA MK-2 is as alive as the dead Dodo. Being single-engined,even if it arrives 5 years hence,the IN will want/has given its req. for a larger twin-engined bird.As MP said,it will be a "tech-dem" only.

It could be an extinct dodo but it will still help us learn a lot more on designing and operationalizing a carrier borne combat aircraft than buying more MiG 29K. I love the MiG29K but if it comes between choosing between the NLCA program and more MiG29K, I would blindly choose the former..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3316
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 02 Mar 2017 03:30

From DelhiDefence twitter Twitter link

LCA Navy is undergoing ground tests for arrestor hook capture. Will progress to landing capture in due time. #aeroindia2017

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3197
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby srai » 02 Mar 2017 05:16

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Philip wrote:NLCA MK-2 is as alive as the dead Dodo. Being single-engined,even if it arrives 5 years hence,the IN will want/has given its req. for a larger twin-engined bird.As MP said,it will be a "tech-dem" only.

It could be an extinct dodo but it will still help us learn a lot more on designing and operationalizing a carrier borne combat aircraft than buying more MiG 29K. I love the MiG29K but if it comes between choosing between the NLCA program and more MiG29K, I would blindly choose the former..


MiG-29Ks are hanger queens. Their serviceability rates have been below 30%. If the IN was satisfied with its 45 MiG-29Ks, there wouldn't have been a need to go after another 57 new foreign twin-engined medium naval fighter; the IN could have simply ordered more of the MiG-29Ks. But instead, LCA was made to take the fall saying it didn't meet the requirements and so a foreign fighter (not MiG-29Ks) was needed. I guess they couldn't say the Russian planes were a dud.

MiG-29K planes face operation deficiencies: CAG
July 26, 2016 20:02 IST
...
Serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30 per cent to 47.14 per cent.
...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2017 00:27


Wow! How can we abandon this experience. There is no substitute!

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 15 Mar 2017 01:30

They cannot call the 29k a Hangar Queen (a.k.a pretty air show static display aircraft) because doing so would jeopardize future purchases of more junk! I wonder if the 29k did as many carrier/ SBTF take offs before being accepted as the NLCA Mk1 already has?

The forces are destroying Indian MIC. They are sending millions of high paying jobs overseas that would other wise lift Indian living standards. National Security also includes National ECONOMIC Security.

How good would an airplane that flies a third of the time be vs another that can fly 75% of the time?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2017 02:06

Vivek K wrote:I wonder if the 29k did as many carrier/ SBTF take offs before being accepted as the NLCA Mk1 already has?

Yes. They did.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2017 10:09

Indranil wrote:
Wow! How can we abandon this experience. There is no substitute!


Many thanks for posting this IR. The same handle has a lot of, may be all AI seminar videos uploaded. Sadly the cameraman has not captured the slides at all, at least for this one. But something is better than nothing.

Indranil wrote:
Vivek K wrote:I wonder if the 29k did as many carrier/ SBTF take offs before being accepted as the NLCA Mk1 already has?

Yes. They did.


We shouldnt forget that NLCA prototypes have flown so far for a grand total of 64+54 sorties, out of which may be 40 are related to Ramp TO including 13 actual TO. I think we can safely assume MiG29 must have had hundreds of TO related flights so far, as would NLCA will before it reaches IOC.

BTW NP2 has started flying after a long gap. Hope its gearing up for arrested Landing related tests. Any word on this IR..?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 17 Mar 2017 04:43


Q&A session was interesting. He does speak about the catastrophic failures on Mig-29K. And he categorically says LCA is much much better. It must be so frustrating to know the truth, and read report after callous report demoralizing your team. Our media is really desh drohi.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3316
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 18 Mar 2017 01:33

Thank you for posting that Indranil!

I agree that it must be incredibly demoralising to watch and read news reports on the Naval LCA being so callously dismissed, after so much work has gone into it. And to know through one's own experience, just how many structural issues the MiG-29K fleet is facing and to not see any media reports on that.

I guess the Navy is not making a big issue over the MiG-29K's structural issues since it will raise questions over it's own oversight..over how the IN spent billions on that fleet without adequately looking into whether the MiG-29K had been thoroughly tested. Perhaps those are the perils of being the launch customer for a foreign design.

BTW, at the end of the video, he mentions the fatigue test specimen for the Naval LCA and AF version - "In fact we are gearing up for the Air Force version, flight fatigue life proving". This was something that was discussed briefly on the LCA thread, about the lack of a fatigue life specimen for the Tejas AF version. This should address that.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Mar 2017 02:47

It is not just Mig-29K, it is the name of the game. F-18s, Su-33s, Rafales also suffer from very low availability and such horror stories. Mig-19K's horror stories are more, because they are the newest kid in town. You will soon start hearing horror stories of the F-35. It is all par for the course. All naval aviation wings know this about their forces and that of others. They just don't break the covenant of not raising an alarm about themselves or others.

However, our reporters single out the our own bird. And that too when it is yet to land foot on an aircraft carrier. They will land it hundreds of times, and I repeat hundreds of times on the SBTF, before they land on Vikramaditya. But till now, it has more than cleared what has been asked for. I have talked to many in the know. I sometimes wish these people could be unshackled to openly take down this "media-pundits" who can't tell one plane from another, but feel compelled enough to write damning reports on other people's work.

Can you imagine how many careers worth of work must have gone into bringing LCA where it is? Our whole aero RnD literally stands on it. And yet these cheapsters ... shame. And they walk with collars high just because they got a ride on a Gripen!!!!!

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1924
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JTull » 18 Mar 2017 05:11

I doubt IN will pay Saab to qualify Gripen-M when we've more institutional knowledge from NLCA programme than them or Mig. Too much risk.

AI-17 has been a revelation in how much innovation is happening in India. Its snowballing. And, I like the openness.

Let's keep reporting it, spreading the word, etc. Wasn't that the true purpose of this forum.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 18 Mar 2017 07:39

What's amazing is that even while they entertained ideas of a naval Gripen, they had flat out rejected the Tejas in the same breath.

This after years of being involved and being kept updated on the Tejas project they were supposed to be jointly leading.

It sure looks like severe incompetence at leadership level..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5234
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Mar 2017 10:17

Dr. Saraswat does not mince words.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18569
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Mar 2017 10:55

^^ VKS claims that Navy did not accept Naval Tejas because two GE-414 engine failed in test and Navy did not want it , How true is that never heard of that before ?

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby pandyan » 18 Mar 2017 11:16

He also briefly mentioned about aesa radar(?) for lca from sweden

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ranjan.rao » 18 Mar 2017 11:21

414??? Shouldn't it be 404, and anyways 414 engines are operating on sh for long

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 18 Mar 2017 11:30

Reminiscent of the torsion bars failing on the Arjun (sic) or the Renk Gearbox failing (later found to have been tampered with). So the true colors of the IN coming out.

SO I guess why don't we fire all these incompetent admirals and generals and hire foreigners? Gora good, SDRE bad!

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57164
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Mar 2017 11:56

the 404 engine also clocks millions of hours on the F18A/B/C/D still in USMC service and retired from USN service. canadians and swiss use it too.

it was a engine designed for naval use from the outset for F18A hence might feature corrosion resistant design.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18569
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Mar 2017 12:46

Vivek K wrote:Reminiscent of the torsion bars failing on the Arjun (sic) or the Renk Gearbox failing (later found to have been tampered with). So the true colors of the IN coming out.

SO I guess why don't we fire all these incompetent admirals and generals and hire foreigners? Gora good, SDRE bad!


What sort of convoluted logic is that , Is it IN fault that 2 engine of 414 has failed during test and IN should not be bothered about it for what is a single engine small fighter.

IN was the first to fund NLCA program from its own funding even when IAF did not made it mind to induct it into service

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Mar 2017 17:39

Singha wrote:the 404 engine also clocks millions of hours on the F18A/B/C/D still in USMC service and retired from USN service. canadians and swiss use it too.

it was a engine designed for naval use from the outset for F18A hence might feature corrosion resistant design.


Long list of single and twin engine types operating the F-404..Gripen A/B/C/D, T/F/A-50 and unmanned aircraft. The next US Navy trainer that replaces the T-45 will also be a single engined aircraft fitted with the F/404.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests